Looting -- The official thread for discussing the loot system. Updated 18th March, 2013.

"

CY13ERPUNK wrote:

it IS NOT GGG's or PoE's fault that YOU as a gamer/player/team cannot communicate or co-operate

Not their fault but will be their problem.

"

"We think how players should have fun..and if they don't, just fuck them suckers, we will force them to play in our way"...

this statement was from Jay Wilson (D3 director), he tried to criticized the fanbase because they do not KNOW what fun is and thank god there was blizzard that came to show us what fun is....

soon after he got fired (well yeah you say that this isnt' the reason...but com'on when you are director of a game and yourself have this attitude whatever you will make it will turn to crap)

because you know...you cant' DICTATE what fun is....you cant' dictate peoples minds..it is just arrogant to even say sthing like this..

players are not some mindless zombies that eat whatever you through at them

"

killbilly wrote:

"

players are not some mindless zombies that eat whatever you through at them

The top grossing games say otherwise....

"

FinalBossSC wrote:

"

killbilly wrote:

"

players are not some mindless zombies that eat whatever you through at them

The top grossing games say otherwise....

only cause of people dont throw away years of time they put into an account (achievements in wow etc)

otherwise they would immidiately leave a sucking game or a game that changed into rubbish

"

The best solution is to have group loot options that the group leader chooses when they make the group.

Let's make it happen, bros.

I feel the best option is to provide a multitude of options so that a group can play the way they want to. aRPGs are about loot. People want the spoils. If there is not a completely fair way for that to happen in a group, people will either quit or only play solo, and that's not the intended gameplay here.

-- Some people here support FFA and they should be able to group with like-minded people who share that view.

-- Some people like the current option of holding an item based on timers of arbitrary length which fairly dishes out item drops. Fact is, kiters and rangers have a disadvantage because there's no guarantee they can know an item has dropped if it occurs offscreen. Already in game you have players running ahead before combat is completed to get to the next pack and kill it which leaves the other players at a disadvantage. Yes, it is high-risk high-reward, but that doesn't change the likelihood that you will have a disenfranchised player because another player is taking advantage of game mechanics.

-- Some people like having their own individual loot with their own individual modifiers for drop and rarity rates.

-- Some people like the idea of loot being 'locked' until combat has ceased within a certain radius and then being free for all or timed allotment.

-- Some people like the need/greed system where there is a chance for everyone to evaluate an item and have a fair crack at it.

The point i'm trying to make is -- let like people grouping choose their own preference. THAT is the only way to make everyone happy on this matter, IMHO.

Now, this is understandably difficult to do for development, however, I believe the benefits could vastly outweigh the drawback of development difficulty here.

Just my 17.3 cents

"

Sickness wrote:

"

residue2k5 wrote:

Too many game companies try to make games to bring as many people as they can. And it always ends up crappy. Look at the 800 pound elephant in the room for proof. Its a game that is made to pull in as many people as it can. So it has no heart. It has no color. Its just a hand holding grindfest for more better loot. This game, however, isnt. Its made by people who want to play this game. Its dang near art in video games as you can get.

So your argument is essentially that if they try to bring in as many people as possible the game will become bad, and thus loot options are bad just because alot of people want it.?

That is completely void of all logic.

No my argument is that years ago video games were more of an art form. People made games because they could. They made games THEY would want to play. They made games because they loved them. But corporate america and marketing took over and games became a "Pump em out as fast as possible to cater to as many as possible" kinda thing. It became all about the money and not about the experience.

The GGG developers have made a game THEY would want to play. Not a game for everyone. And if you want to play it your gonna have to accept certain differences in playstyle.

What is the common argument when someone hates a feature or mechanic in a game? "Go make your own game then" Well they did just that. So yes it is perfectly logical. If your a logical person that is.

And I hope its so successful that it rocks the corporate game market to its knees. Makes them start to realize they need to fund the independents more and give them more freedom to design the experience if they want to be successful.

Either they should remove player names from the loot labels or make the player names clickable (I believe only the loot and the loot name are clickable and not the player name). This will make it easier to click on by the player that the loot is designated for.

"

residue2k5 wrote:

The GGG developers have made a game THEY would want to play.

They are not ONLY doing that. They are making the game they want but they are also forming it around what the community wants.

If you think the devs are ONLY doing what they want then your just plain wrong.

Lets not act like discussing the looting issues is a huge problem. The devs started this thread and are letting it run.

double post